Long-term efficacy, safety and neurotolerability of MATRix regimen followed by autologous transplant in primary CNS lymphoma: 7-year results of the IELSG32 randomized trial.

219 HIV-negative adults ≤70 years with primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) were enrolled in the randomized IELSG32 trial. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate-cytarabine (arm A), or methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab (B), or methotrexate-cytarabine-thiotepa-rituximab (MATRix; arm C). A second randomization allocated patients with responsive/stable disease to whole-brain irradiation (WBRT) or carmustine-thiotepa-conditioned autologous transplantation (ASCT). First results, after a median follow-up of 30 months, showed that MATRix significantly improves outcome, with both WBRT and ASCT being similarly effective. However, sound assessment of overall survival (OS), efficacy of salvage therapy, late complications, secondary tumors, and cognitive impairment requires longer follow-up. Herein, we report the results of this trial at a median follow-up of 88 months. As main findings, MATRix was associated with excellent long-lasting outcome, with a 7-year OS of 21%, 37%, and 56% respectively for arms A, B, and C. Notably, patients treated with MATRix and consolidation had a 7-year OS of 70%. The superiority of arm B on arm A suggests a benefit from the addition of rituximab. Comparable efficacy of WBRT and ASCT was confirmed. Salvage therapy was ineffective; benefit was recorded only in patients with late relapse re-treated with methotrexate. Eight (4%) patients developed a second cancer. Importantly, MATRix and ASCT did not result in higher non-relapse mortality or second tumors incidence. Patients who received WBRT experienced impairment in attentiveness and executive functions, whereas patients undergoing ASCT experienced improvement in these functions as well as in memory and quality of life.

Whole-brain radiotherapy or autologous stem-cell transplantation as consolidation strategies after high-dose methotrexate-based chemoimmunotherapy in patients with primary CNS lymphoma: results of the second randomisation of the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) trial is an international randomised phase 2 study that addresses two key clinical questions in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma. Results of the first randomisation have demonstrated that methotrexate, cytarabine, thiotepa, and rituximab (called the MATRix regimen) is the induction combination associated with significantly better outcome compared with the other induction combinations tested. Here, we report the results of the second randomisation that addresses the efficacy of myeloablative chemotherapy supported by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), as an alternative to whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), as consolidation after high-dose-methotrexate-based chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: HIV-negative patients (aged 18-70 years) with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3 were randomly assigned to receive four courses of methotrexate 3·5 g/m2 on day 1 plus cytarabine 2 g/m2 twice daily on days 2 and 3 (group A); or the same combination plus two doses of rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days -5 and 0 (group B); or the same methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab combination plus thiotepa 30 mg/m2 on day 4 (group C), with the three groups repeating treatment every 3 weeks. Patients with responsive or stable disease after induction treatment, with adequate autologous peripheral blood stem-cell collection, and without persistent iatrogenic side-effects, were eligible for the second randomisation between WBRT (photons of 4-10 MeV; five fractions per week; fraction size 180 cGy; started within 4 weeks from the last induction course; group D) and carmustine-thiotepa conditioned ASCT (carmustine 400 mg/m2 on day -6, and thiotepa 5 mg/kg every 12 h on days -5 and -4, followed by reinfusion of autologous peripheral blood stem cells; group E). A permuted block randomised design was adopted for both randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation list was used within each stratum. No masking after assignment to intervention was adopted. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival, with induction group and response to induction chemotherapy as stratification parameters. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011920. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2010, and Aug 27, 2014, 227 patients were recruited from 53 centres in five countries. 219 of 227 enrolled patients were assessable. Of the 122 patients eligible for the second randomisation, 118 patients were randomly assigned to WBRT or ASCT (59 patients per group) and constitute the study population. WBRT and ASCT were both effective, and achieved the predetermined efficacy threshold of at least 40 progression-free survivors at 2 years among the first 52 patients in both groups D and E. There were no significant differences in 2-year progression-free survival between WBRT and ASCT: 80% (95% CI 70-90) in group D and 69% (59-79) in group E (hazard ratio 1·50, 95% CI 0·83-2·71; p=0·17). Both consolidation therapies were well tolerated. Grade 4 non-haematological toxicity was uncommon; as expected, haematological toxicity was more common in patients treated with ASCT than in those who received WBRT. Two toxic deaths (infections) were recorded, both in patients who received ASCT. INTERPRETATION: WBRT and ASCT are both feasible and effective as consolidation therapies after high-dose methotrexate-based chemoimmunotherapy in patients aged 70 years or younger with primary CNS lymphoma. The risks and implications of cognitive impairment after WBRT should be considered at the time of therapeutic decision. FUNDING: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, Cancer Research UK, Oncosuisse, and Swiss National Science Foundation.

Dalotuzumab in chemorefractory KRAS exon 2 mutant colorectal cancer: Results from a randomised phase II/III trial.

Limited data are available on the efficacy of anti-IGF-1R agents in KRAS mutant colorectal cancer (CRC). We analysed the outcome of 69 chemorefractory, KRAS exon 2 mutant CRC patients who were enrolled in a double-blind, randomised, phase II/III study of irinotecan and cetuximab plus dalotuzumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (arm A), dalotuzumab 7.5 mg/kg every second week (arm B) or placebo (arm C). Objective response rate (5.6% vs. 3.1% vs. 4.8%), median progression-free survival (2.7 vs. 2.6 vs. 1.4 months) and overall survival (7.8 vs. 10.3 vs. 7.8 months) were not statistically significantly different between treatment groups. Most common grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities included neutropenia, diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, fatigue and dermatitis acneiform. Expression of IGF-1R, IGF-1, IGF-2 and EREG by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was assessed in 351 patients from the same study with available data on KRAS exon 2 mutational status. Median cycle threshold values for all biomarkers were significantly lower (i.e., higher expression, p < 0.05) among patients with KRAS wild-type compared to those with KRAS exon 2 mutant tumours. No significant changes were found according to location of the primary tumour with only a trend towards lower expression of IGF-1 in colon compared to rectal cancers (p = 0.06). Albeit limited by the small sample size, this study does not appear to support a potential role for anti-IGF-1R agents in KRAS exon 2 mutant CRC. Data on IGF-1R, IGF-1 and IGF-2 expression here reported may be useful for patient stratification in future trials with inhibitors of the IGF pathway.

Chemoimmunotherapy with methotrexate, cytarabine, thiotepa, and rituximab (MATRix regimen) in patients with primary CNS lymphoma: results of the first randomisation of the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for patients with primary CNS lymphoma remains to be defined. Active therapies are often associated with increased risk of haematological or neurological toxicity. In this trial, we addressed the tolerability and efficacy of adding rituximab with or without thiotepa to methotrexate-cytarabine combination therapy (the MATRix regimen), followed by a second randomisation comparing consolidation with whole-brain radiotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. We report the results of the first randomisation in this Article. METHODS: For the international randomised phase 2 International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) trial, HIV-negative patients (aged 18-70 years) with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and measurable disease were enrolled from 53 cancer centres in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the UK) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive four courses of methotrexate 3·5 g/m(2) on day 1 plus cytarabine 2 g/m(2) twice daily on days 2 and 3 (group A); or the same combination plus two doses of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days -5 and 0 (group B); or the same methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab combination plus thiotepa 30 mg/m(2) on day 4 (group C), with the three groups repeating treatment every 3 weeks. Patients with responsive or stable disease after the first stage were then randomly allocated between whole-brain radiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. A permuted blocks randomised design (block size four) was used for both randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation list was used within each stratum to preserve allocation concealment. Randomisation was stratified by IELSG risk score (low vs intermediate vs high). No masking after assignment to intervention was used. The primary endpoint of the first randomisation was the complete remission rate, analysed by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011920. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2010, and Aug 27, 2014, 227 eligible patients were recruited. 219 of these 227 enrolled patients were assessable. At median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 22-38), patients treated with rituximab and thiotepa had a complete remission rate of 49% (95% CI 38-60), compared with 23% (14-31) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine alone (hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·28-0·74) and 30% (21-42) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab (0·61, 0·40-0·94). Grade 4 haematological toxicity was more frequent in patients treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab and thiotepa, but infective complications were similar in the three groups. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in all three groups were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and febrile neutropenia or infections. 13 (6%) patients died of toxicity. INTERPRETATION: With the limitations of a randomised phase 2 study design, the IELSG32 trial provides a high level of evidence supporting the use of MATRix combination as the new standard chemoimmunotherapy for patients aged up to 70 years with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and as the control group for future randomised trials. FUNDING: Associazione Italiana del Farmaco, Cancer Research UK, Oncosuisse, and Swiss National Foundation.

A Randomized Phase II/III Study of Dalotuzumab in Combination With Cetuximab and Irinotecan in Chemorefractory, KRAS Wild-Type, Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-1R) mediates resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition and may represent a therapeutic target. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double blind, phase II/III trial of dalotuzumab, an anti-IGF-1R monoclonal antibody, with standard therapy in chemo-refractory, KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to dalotuzumab 10mg/kg weekly (arm A), dalotuzumab 7.5mg/kg every alternate week (arm B), or placebo (arm C) in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included exploratory biomarker analyses. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely discontinued for futility after 344 eligible KRAS wild-type patients were included in the primary efficacy population (arm A = 116, arm B = 117, arm C = 111). Median PFS was 3.9 months in arm A (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1.83, P = .07) and 5.4 months in arm B (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.55, P = .44) compared with 5.6 months in arm C. Median OS was 10.8 months in arm A (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.99 to 2.00, P = .06) and 11.6 months in arm B (HR = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.79, P = .18) compared with 14.0 months in arm C. Grade 3 or higher asthenia and hyperglycaemia occurred more frequently with dalotuzumab compared with placebo. In exploratory biomarker analyses, patients with high IGF-1 mRNA tumors in arm A had numerically better PFS (5.6 vs 3.6 months, HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.28 to 1.23, P = .16) and OS (17.9 vs 9.4 months, HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.31 to 1.45, P = .31) compared with those with high IGF-1 mRNA tumors in arm C. In contrast, in arm C high IGF-1 mRNA expression predicted lower response rate (17.6% vs 37.3%, P = .04), shorter PFS (3.6 vs 6.6 months, HR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.15 to 4.02, P = .02), and shorter OS (9.4 vs 15.5 months, HR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.21 to 4.82, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Adding dalotuzumab to irinotecan and cetuximab was feasible but did not improve survival outcome. IGF-1R ligands are promising biomarkers for differential response to anti-EGFR and anti-IGF-1R therapies.

Time course of safety and efficacy of aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on previous oxaliplatin-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously-treated with oxaliplatin benefit significantly from the addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI in relation to overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The results for efficacy and safety over the time course of the VEGF Trap (aflibercept) with irinotecan in colorectal cancer after failure of oxaliplatin regimen trial were analysed based on data from 1226 patients randomised to receive FOLFIRI plus either aflibercept (n=612) or placebo (n=614). Hazard ratios (HR) by 6-month time period were estimated using a piecewise Cox proportional hazard model. Severity of adverse events (AEs) was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria, version 3.0. RESULTS: The estimated probabilities of survival were 38.5% versus 30.9% at 18 months, 28.0% versus 18.7% at 24 months and 22.3% versus 12.0% at 30 months, for the aflibercept- and placebo-treated arms, respectively. The proportional improvement in the HR over time was consistent with the survival probability results; survival at 24 months was improved by 50% and almost doubled at 30 months. The majority of worst-grade AEs occurred within the first four cycles of treatment and in a small percent of treatment cycles and were mostly reversible. Common chemotherapy- and anti-vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF)-associated AEs occurred rarely and in a small proportion of cycles with the majority being of single occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI showed a continued and persistent improvement in overall survival over time in patients with mCRC. Although grade 3-4 AEs were more frequent in the aflibercept arm, they occurred in early treatment cycles and decreased sharply following initial presentation.

EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. METHODS: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process. RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.

EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. METHODS: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Experts commented and voted on the two web-based online voting rounds before the meeting (between 4th and 25th October and between the 20th November and 3rd December 2012) as well as one online round after the meeting (4th-20th March 2013) and were invited to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. All sentences that were voted on are available on the EURECCA website www.canceraudit.eu. The consensus document was divided in sections describing evidence based algorithms of diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and stage IV separately. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to achieve European Consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues using the Delphi method. This consensus embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.

Review of the efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a range of tumor types.

Chemotherapy regimens differ according to the tumor type being treated and are associated with varying degrees of emetogenic potential. Since the distribution of risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting differs across tumor types, it is important to understand the efficacy of antiemetic regimens in multiple patient populations. To characterize treatment response in patients with various malignancies (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and lung) treated with either highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens, a pooled analysis of patient-level data from 4 large randomized trials was performed (N=2813). Patients receiving an antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone were compared with patients receiving an active-control antiemetic regimen containing ondansetron plus dexamethasone. In all tumor types analyzed, complete responses were observed in a higher proportion of HEC-treated patients receiving aprepitant compared with active-control patients (genitourinary [61.5% vs 40.6%, P<0.001], gastrointestinal [68.2% vs 44.7%, P=0.013], and lung cancers [73.5% vs 52.8%, P<0.001]). For MEC-treated patients, complete response rates were also higher for aprepitant patients than active-control patients for all tumor types, with a significant difference noted among patients with breast cancer (54.9% vs 43.9%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with no vomiting was higher in both HEC- and MEC-treated patients. While results of previous studies provide support for the use of antiemetic regimens that include aprepitant, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone, this analysis demonstrates the consistent efficacy of aprepitant as part of an antiemetic regimen across different tumor types and chemotherapy regimens.

Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials.

Disease-free survival is increasingly being used as the primary endpoint of most trials testing adjuvant treatments in cancer. Other frequently used endpoints include overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and time to recurrence. These endpoints are often defined differently in different trials in the same type of cancer, leading to a lack of comparability among trials. In this Commentary, we used adjuvant studies in colon cancer as a model to address this issue. In a systematic review of the literature, we identified 52 studies of adjuvant treatment in colon cancer published in 1997-2006 that used eight other endpoints in addition to overall survival. Both the definition of these endpoints and the starting point for measuring time to the events that constituted these endpoints varied widely. A panel of experts on clinical research on colorectal cancer then reached consensus on the definition of each endpoint. Disease-free survival--defined as the time from randomization to any event, irrespective of cause--was considered to be the most informative endpoint for assessing the effect of treatment and therefore the most relevant to clinical practice. The proposed guidelines may add to the quality and cross-comparability of future studies of adjuvant treatments for cancer.

Comparative activity of antiemetic drugs.

Nausea and vomiting continues to be an important problem for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are classified as acute, occurring within the first 24h, or delayed, occurring after the first 24h. A number of antiemetic agents are available for the management of nausea and vomiting, including 5-HT3-receptor-antagonists, corticosteroids, NK-1-receptor-antagonists, dopamine-receptor antagonists, benzodiazepines, neuroleptics and cannabinoids. With modern antiemetic therapy, vomiting can be prevented in 70-80% of patients, whereas the control of nausea remains suboptimal. The development of acute emesis is known to depend on serotonin. The pathophysiology of delayed emesis is less well understood, and multiple mechanisms may contribute, including substance P. Here, the most recent developments in the antiemetic therapy, including new antiemetic drugs and the latest guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis, are reviewed.

A prospective evaluation of two radiotherapy schedules with 10 versus 20 fractions for the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression: final results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is still being debated. The current observational multicenter study, performed prospectively by the authors, evaluated two radiotherapy (RT) schedules and prognostic factors with respect to functional outcome METHODS: In the current study, 214 patients with MSCC were irradiated between April 2000 and September 2003 with 30 gray (Gy) per 10 fractions per 2 weeks (n = 110) or with 40 Gy per 20 fractions per 4 weeks (n = 104). Motor function and ambulatory status were evaluated before RT and until 6 months after RT. The following potential prognostic factors were investigated: RT schedule, performance status, age, number of irradiated vertebrae, type of primary tumor, pretreatment ambulatory status, and length of time developing motor deficits before RT. RESULTS: Both groups were balanced for patient characteristics and potential prognostic factors. Motor function improved in 43% of patients after 30 Gy and in 41% of patients after 40 Gy (P = 0.799). Posttreatment ambulatory rates were 60% and 64% (P = 0.708), respectively. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that a slower progression of motor deficits before RT (P < 0.001), a favorable histology of the primary tumor (P < 0.001), and being ambulatory before RT (P = 0.035) were associated with a better functional outcome. RT schedule (P = 0.269) and other variables had no significant impact. Acute toxicity was mild, and late toxicity was not observed during the period of follow-up. Follow-up was 12 (6-28) months in patients surviving >/= 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty gray per 10 fractions was preferable to 40 Gy per 20 fractions, because it was associated with similar outcome, less treatment time, and lower costs. The type of tumor, pretreatment ambulatory status, and length of time developing motor deficits before RT were relevant prognostic factors and should be considered in future studies.

Extragonadal germ cell tumors of the mediastinum and retroperitoneum: results from an international analysis.

PURPOSE: To characterize the clinical and biologic features of extragonadal germ cell tumor (EGCT) and to determine the overall outcome with currently available treatment strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of an unselected population of 635 consecutive patients treated from 1975 through 1996 at 11 cancer centers, 341 patients (54%) had primary mediastinal EGCT, and 283 patients (45%) had retroperitoneal EGCT. Five hundred twenty-four patients (83%) had a nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (GCT), and 104 patients (16%) had a seminomatous histology. RESULTS: After platinum-based induction chemotherapy with or without secondary surgery, 141 patients (49%) with mediastinal nonseminomas (median follow-up, 19 months; range, 1 to 178 months) and 144 patients (63%) with retroperitoneal nonseminoma (median follow-up, 29 months; range, 1 to 203 months) are alive (P =.0006). In contrast, the overall survival rate for patients with a seminomatous EGCT is 88%, with no difference between patients with mediastinal or retroperitoneal tumor location (median follow-up, 49 months; range, 4 to 193 months; respective 70 months; range, 1 to 211 months). A significantly lower progression-free survival rate was found in seminoma patients treated with initial radiotherapy alone compared with chemotherapy. Nonseminomatous histology, presence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases, primary mediastinal GCT location, and elevated beta-human chorionic gonadotropin were independent prognostic factors for shorter survival. Hematologic malignancies (n = 17) occurred without exception in patients with primary mediastinal nonseminoma. Sixteen patients developed a metachronous testicular cancer despite the use of platinum-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Whereas patients with pure seminomatous EGCT histology have a long-term chance of cure of almost 90% irrespective of the primary tumor site, 45% of patients with mediastinal nonseminomas are alive at 5 years. This outcome is clearly inferior compared with patients with nonseminomatous retroperitoneal primary tumors.